Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

0973021

Teacher's date of birth:

24 March 1973

Location teacher worked:

Crawley, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

29 to 30 July 2019

Outcome type:

Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr John Stanway, formerly employed in Crawley, South East England .

The proceedings were held at 5 Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 29 July 2019.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr John Stanway: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision Teacher: John Stanway Teacher ref number: 0973021 Teacher date of birth: 24 March 1973 TRA reference: 17050 Date of determination: 29 July 2019 Former employer: Hazelwick School, Crawley, West Sussex (the “School”) A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 29 July 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr John Stanway (“Mr Stanway”). The panel members were Robert Allan (lay panellist – in the chair), Caroline Tilley (lay panellist) and Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Kara O’Neill of Eversheds-Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the Agency was Caroline Dean of DAC Beachcroft LLP solicitors. Mr Stanway was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 30 April 2019. It was alleged that Mr Stanway was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. On or around 3 November 2017, you attended the School and appeared under and/or were under the influence of alcohol and smelt of alcohol; 2. By your conduct at 1 above you taught in an inappropriate manner by (a) Leaving a lesson to get a drink and were absent for 10 or more minutes during that lesson (b) Playing loud music during a lesson (c) Failing to adhere to an anticipated lesson plan (d) not controlling the noise levels and behaviour of one of more pupils during a lesson The particulars of the allegations as set out in the Notice of Proceedings, refer to the teacher in the third person. In the absence of/non-response from the teacher, the panel has taken the position of referring to the allegations having not been admitted. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the Agency complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel decided to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. 5 The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In making the decision, the panel noted that the teacher waived his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel was satisfied that the Agency had discharged its statutory obligations regarding service of the notice of proceedings and that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Stanway was aware of the proceedings. The panel noted that the Agency had made several attempts (via email, post and phone) to contact Mr Stanway. It reviewed evidence that the notice of proceedings had been sent to and signed for at Mr Stanway’s latest given address by a Mr [Redacted]. The panel also examined email correspondence sent to Mr Stanway which had received no response although Mr Stanway had responded via the same email address up until the period of March 2019. The panel was satisfied that the Agency had taken appropriate steps to contact Mr Stanway but he had not responded to either email or written communication. He had also not provided any up to date contact details. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing’s taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Stanway’s attendance at the hearing. The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel was able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel’s reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case. The panel was aware of the potential consequences for the teacher and acknowledged that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. In addition, the panel believed these were serious allegations and it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing. Upon a request from the panel, the presenting officer applied to admit 5 documents. The documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. 6 The panel was satisfied that the documents were relevant to the case as one particular document was the previous panel decision made in December 2018 and the other documents gave clearer evidence of service of documentation to the teacher. The panel considered whether Mr Stanway had received the documents and had sufficient opportunities to make representations about the documents and was satisfied that the panel decision document had been properly sent to Mr Stanway as evidenced in the proof of service index of papers. The other documents gave clearer evidence related to service and Mr Stanway would have been aware of the attempts to serve the papers on him. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the documents. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, identification key and list of roles – pages 1 to 3 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 3a to 3c Section 3: Agreement statement of facts and presenting officer submissions – pages 3d to 3m Section 4: Agency witness statements – pages 4 to 75 Section 5: Agency evidence – pages 76 to 396 Section 6: Teacher witness statements – none submitted Section 7: Teacher documents – none submitted In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Service documents – pages 399 to 403 Panel decision document of December 2018 – pages 404 to 409 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses There were no witnesses called. 7 E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it had read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Stanway commenced employment as a science teacher at the School on the 1P st P September 2017. It was alleged that on the 3P rd P November 2017, Mr Stanway taught 2 science lessons whilst under the influence of alcohol, one of which was witnessed by two other members of staff. Following on from this incident, an investigation took place by the School and a subsequent disciplinary meeting was held. Mr Stanway was dismissed from the School on 15P th P January 2018. Mr Stanway appealed the School’s decision and an appeal meeting took place on 27P th P March 2018. On 4P th P April 2018, the School upheld its decision to dismiss Mr Stanway. Findings of fact The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Stanway proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 3 November 2017, you attended the School and appeared under and/or were under the influence of alcohol and smelt of alcohol; The panel assessed all the evidence before it and was mindful at the outset that it only had limited medical evidence from Mr Stanway, despite previously requesting further details in a panel meeting held in December 2018. The panel had not received any further medical evidence from Mr Stanway. The panel took account of Mr Stanway’s varying admissions about this allegation and it was noted that he had changed his explanation for his behaviour on a number of occasions. The panel firstly took into account evidence in which Mr Stanway stated that his behaviour was as a result of a [Redacted]. The panel reviewed evidence in the form of 3 letters from Mr Stanway’s GP practice. The first one of these stated that he was diagnosed with [Redacted] when he went to see a doctor on 6P th P November 2017. The panel also viewed a letter from an occupational health physician dated 2P nd P October 2017, prior to the incident, which stated, “Mr Stanway has experienced [Redacted] previously which have required some medical input… I do not t